R.S.A. No. 629 of 2007 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 629 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.11.2008
Ram Kishan
..Appellant
v.
Jag Ram and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal before this court against concurrent
finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for
declaration and injunction was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit
challenging mutation No. 96 dated 3.1.1925 with the plea that Dewa, who had
gifted the land to Jag Ram (respondent No.1) was not the owner of the land. Both
the courts below dismissed the suit on merits as well as being time-barred.
The appellant-plaintiff sought to claim that he was owner in
possession of the suit property. However, there was no documentary evidence to
support the claim except his oral statement. In the record, Jag Ram was shown to
be absolute owner in possession of the suit land. The possession continued from
1960-61 onwards. Even during the consolidation proceedings, mutation No. 185
was sanctioned and separate khatas were made. Even at that time, the appellant-
plaintiff did not challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. His plea
that the entire proceedings were at his back was not borne out from the record, as
no evidence was led to substantiate the plea. The statement of the appellant-
plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit land was found to be contrary to the
evidence produced on record. The appellant-plaintiff even admitted in his cross-
examination that the land falls in two khatas, which were separated at the time of
consolidation which necessarily mean that the appellant-plaintiff was in
knowledge of the revenue entries consistently coming in favour of respondent-Jag
Ram. The plea of ignorance was taken just to bring the suit within the period of
limitation. What was sought to be challenged in the suit was a mutation, which was
entered way back on 3.1.1925 and the revenue record prepared on the basis
R.S.A. No. 629 of 2007 [ 2]
thereof. The suit was filed on 16.5.1994. Such a hopelessly time-barred and
belated claim could not be adjudicated upon by the Court and it has rightly non-
suited the appellant-plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the courts below are
plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a
substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
17.11.2008
mk